A lot of food for thought in the press these days., No, I am not talking about SDK or Rupert Murdoch scandals. What really strikes home are contradictory yet complementary articles such as :
“Workers Unite! You Have Nothing To Lose But Your E-Mail Chains” - (Harvey Schachter) Globe and Mail - 11-07-11.
vs (and yet not. . .)
“The Handwriting On The Wall At Public Schools In Indiana” (Laura Baziuk) Ottawa Citizen - Post Media News - 11-07-11.
The first article encourages individuality and creativity in professional life. It does so by offering up rules of engagement re: emails and an understanding and respect for a “Doodling Manifesto”. And what has one to do with the other? The e-mail rules of engagement encourage a more humane use of this tool - a less mechanical acceptance of it as a be-all-and-end-all contact medium.
Regardless of e-mailing’s potential as a quick (and even flippant) form of communication, its overuse and abuse are reaching epic proportions throughout business and even personal worlds. And so, the article includes (as a compensation?) a Doodling Manifesto”. It highlights the creative potential of visual thinking - through the productivity angled, yet seemingly “nonsensical”, art of doodling. What is doodling? It is the physical act of rendering concrete a thought, emotion or concept through (from abstract to realistic) renditions of brain pattern playing. In essence, doodling stimulates the brain into action. It neurologically enriches our ability to analyse, formulate and implement solutions to problems - which otherwise could remain unsolved. Doodling is sited as nothing short of miraculous in its capacity to stimulate visual, auditory and kinesthetic abilities. And this is ironic since we live in times which do not consider thinking things out important. Our technical wizardry does that for us - (at least as long as batteries, electricity and oil allow us to depend on them. . .) What is troublesome is that we are gradually shutting down our brains - much as couch-potato-ing is gradually shutting down our bodies.
Not specifically stated in the article is that doodling is like an inexpensive and self-recharging battery which stimulates lazy or misused thinking patterns. But then. . . contemporary academic, productivity minds and other authorities don’t really consider it a viable “tool” since it is one of those things whose specific attributes you can’t really ascertain or pinpoint in mathematical or scientific terms. Even worse. . . You can’t market or “buy” what it offers - so. . . Of what use is it?
And so, this article (not in so many words) reminds us that with the shutting down of brain exercises we are increasingly showing signs of a new ailment - roboticism - where tech tools handle most of our thinking processes in order that we profit from the contemporary “beingness ” of our anorexic mental lifestyle (i.e.: a slowing down of our ability to move forward creatively). Encase this individual inability to thrive in an increasingly obese physical shell - and what we have is a gradual slowing down to a crawl - and dead stand-still of anything and everything which has ever been created.
This first article - left to its own devices - could simply be a whimsical “à côté”. But fear not. . . It seems journalists are becoming more and more interested in our gradual mental and physical demise. . .
Doodling has always been the realm of creative, of thinking peoples. . . Maybe it is no longer common because we are doing exactly that - increasingly not thinking. And so, maybe we are even encouraging the “not” thinking side of us all. . . Not-thinking makes the world a less messy place - a “neater” and more predictable place. But mostly it offers us a less stressful state - an environment in which we don’t have to cope with what life imposes upon us. To simply let “others” think for us - and, to simply let things be is so much “easier”. . .
The second Ottawa Citizen (Laura Baziuk) article (inadvertently related to the above) is in regards to Indiana schools. "The Handwriting On The Wall At Public Schools In Indiana". It seems that starting in the fall, children in this school system will no longer need to learn cursive writing. . . (one of the last vestiges of individuality left in our increasingly homogenous world of sameness). Writing is out. "But they do, however, have to sharpen their typing skills" - states an academic memo. . . Just think. . . a million little busy fingers tip-tapping away . . . All the letters the same - neat, uncomplicated, simple, homogenous. . . readable. . . NOT one unique scribbler in the bunch. . . . Just a horde of carpal tunnelled 6 year olds wincing in pain for approval. . . No more “curlicues” or hearts doting “I’s” or fancy swirls encasing capitals. . .
One teacher even poutingly states that there are more important skills to be learned than writing - such as critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork and literacy. . . Am I missing something? Aren’t these individual items the exact skills few if any of our children possess today - because over time we have taken away any of the acquisition exercises which trained our children’s minds to assimilate these attributes?
Aren’t these the very skills that Universities and colleges say are totally missing in our entitled children? Aren’t these the skills that are falling by the wayside because school boards consider killing recess, shortening school days and putting a computer on every desk more important than giving our children the opportunity to become the best they can be as INDIVIDUALS - rather than cloned patsies of a faltering system?
But then. . . Maybe writing is simply the last skill we are ripping away from the system in order to take oppression away from the heavy task of “discovering and learning things”. And anyway, kids would rather type than write. Writing is hard. . . (Sigh).
But then, possibly the goal just may be to not teach skills to children. . . And such a statement begins to make sense when we look at recent statistical evidence which shows that more and more “children” continue to live with their parents beyond their 20s. Between 1997 and 2006 the age of “stay at home children increased from the late teens to the late 20s and mid 30s. Percentagewise stay-at-home children have also risen from the low 20% to 42.7%. Now this does not mean that most are helping their parents pay off the mortgage or are buying groceries. . . No, we must realize that many are being fed like fledglings without wings, dependent on laundry services and room and board, to which - like the expected passing grades in school - they feel “entitled”.
Oh am I on a roll today. . .
But please, dear reader, be assured that if I add a third article in the area of school “progress” in today's blog I am not going out of my way to search these things out. All of the mentioned articles were blatantly obvious - on this same day - in various national and local papers - from international media sources.
And so. . . Bear with me. . .
“British Teachers Told To Use Force To Restrain Unruly Pupils” (Graeme Paton) Ottawa Citizen - The Daily Telegraph - 11-07-11
Well, well. . . Many years ago, the child-centered worlds of specialists insisted that we allow children to call teachers and other adults by their first names. That, they said, would make the school environment more friendly - more learning oriented. . . Actually, it was a primary crucial step in the disintegration of school and parental authority. Why? What we forget, is that a first name only communication has always been used with "subordinates" - especially children. For centuries it was the lot of the indentured and enslaved. We allowed them a “base” name BUT with no connection to anything other than their status. . . And so Miss Henry - the teacher - who is a daughter of the Henry clan (and everything that name historically implies) and linked to other Henrys and known by her clan affiliations - is now. . . no more than “Sally” - "a" generic kindergarten teacher, identifiable (for convenience sake) by a single name.
Such is the power, for example, of a promoter who wishes to call you by your first name in order to impose his product upon you. It's basic psychology. It takes away your authority and hands it over to another. It demeans the stature of any and all people to a "nametag" - an identifying series of letters of no consequence beyond the reading of them. Slaves never had last names. They were not respected as individuals born of a collective and therefore neither their past nor their future were ever taken into consideration. In essence, "first" name only environments use this tactic to "render lower" the position of an individual. This is how people, whether children or adults are mentally and emotionally subdued.
To this new “democratising (!)” practice we began taking away all authority from teachers and academic institutions. Children’s demands became pre-eminent. To this we began gazing upon any and all adults as enemies of childhood. The village helping to raise a child concept was tossed into the trash as strangers became dangers. And so, community values were gradually diminished and eventually added to the pile of “traditional” trash. And with the elimination of anything and everything we had learned from our elders, we eventually handed over our capacity and authority to raise our children as we saw fit. These rights and privileges were handed over to “specialists” and private enterprise who then quickly determined us incapable without their “help” and products.
And so. . . several generations later. . . Our kids are now telling us all what to do (or is that : where to go). And they’re doing it aggressively. And suddenly we are frightened of our own offspring. . . And now, elder abuse increases and we wonder why. . . And so, we suddenly react. We think we are going to make everything well, make everything OK by giving now powerless teachers the authority to grab our kids physically and tell them to “STOP!” But we fail to see that the whole environment needs to change before this can ever be possible. And at this point. . . will those entitled children allow us?
It seems we now feel compelled to call upon brute force to reinstate calm and eliminate abuse and bullying perpetrated by the very angelic children gone wild that we have sculpted. Definitely more grown tall, more powerful and ever more demanding of their “rights”, we suddenly find ourselves crying out in disgust at the not so petty antics of our “conscienceless?” broods. And they, just as suddenly, have no idea what "our problem" is.
I am generally a smiling individual, despite my words. I love the world which offers me so much to be creative with. If not the irreverent creative clown I wish to be considered by my children, I do find it difficult to grin for pleasure rather than cynicism today. That is why I write. I don’t think we are all going to hell in a hand-basket. But I do think we need to get off our butts and “think” about what is going on - before it does get to be too late.
All of these constantly being referred to articles on human behaviour, added to my observations over the years goaded me into writing Beyond Discouragement - Creativity. I wrote things I (sadly) believed to be true. I just never thought that the world media would so consistently concur with those self-same findings.
Nonetheless, Happy week all!
PS: School is out. . . So where are the thousands of children we’re supposed to be being careful about as we drive around town going to work and doing our shopping? (Does the absence of children riding bikes and running around outside their homes mean we should now consider Nintendos and Gameboys “child-safety” equipment?)
Monday, July 11, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Same Old, Same Old
I've skipped a few weeks of reading and reporting on pertinent news items. Sadly, things haven't changed. (dreamer that I am) The ill health of individuals and family life are still in the forefront of daily news items. Same old, same old. . . This week an article in Le Droit newspaper had as a title: "Une surveillance à l'américaine". Loosely translated : "Surveillance, American Style". That's a rather arrogant title, since parenting styles in Canada are not much different than those in the UK, the US and Australia - i.e.: Each "style" is on rather shaky ground sanity wise. Nonetheless, this particular article presents us with a fait accompli : i.e.: a nursery in Gatineau Québec has installed a full time surveillance system. All adults working in this environment and children in care. . . will be videod at all times. . . Parents can "visit" virtually their children, at any time. I wonder whether this plan of action is based on a real fear of staffers being "not kosher" around kids or whether the plan is to satisfy the hovering needs of contemporary parents. Either way, it feels sick. . . Certainly not something a healthy child would agree to. . . having his or her every "picking of nose goo" and elbow scratch recorded. Bizarre behaviours we "normal" adults consider to be . . . normal. . .
On another note - another article which does not say anything new but emphasizes how drastic an old situation has become : "Will Young Men Ever Grow Up?"
This article in the Ottawa Citizen (July 4, 2011) mentions the problem of boys not really wanting to become men anymore. Patricia Cayo Sexton reported in the 60s (in her book : The Feminized Male) that schools were detrimental to the physical, mental and emotional health of boys. North America's reaction to her research findings? Nothing. Why bother. If little boys can't sit still for a few hours every day being bored into a stupor than there's something wrong with them - not the system. And so, the encouraged lowest common denominatior life styles males embrace today shouldn't be a surprise. Life without passion has become the norm. Living at home, having their laundry done by Mom and being fed like wingless chicks who refuse to leave the nest - (while feeling entitled to all manner of their freeby lifestyles) - is now the norm. . . Between 1981 and 2006, the numbers of males living at home - and failing to embrace "growing up" - between 20 and 29 have risen from 27 % to 43.5%. . . There's literally nothing out there to excite men to become men - to take on the world, to get excited about possibilities. So they might as well stay home and remain the boys they have always been. Why bother with growing up? It's been disappointing to be male all this while anyway. . . Why would it suddenly change? So. . . "Who gives a damn about tomorrow."
But then. . . There's always the encouraging article filled with discouraging data. . . "Go Outside and Play" is a new mantrra that doesn't seem to be catching on. It simply isn't being stated with much enthusiasm. School days are shorter and that means no time for recesses of any consequence. Parents have been taught that there are strangers around every tree - so children can't go out and play "safely".
An article witht that exact title : Go Out And Play appeared in the Globe and Mail (July 4). It announces to the world that children have a hard time playing. . . They don't know how. . . My reaction : So what's new?. . . Children haven't been allowed to play on their own for the past decade. Organized sports, where there are some, are so adult oriented in content and goals, they fail to meet the creative pursuits of healthy children. The results? Unhealthy children in mind and body and "willingness" to achieve or even attempt anything on their own. And so, "specialists" (they're always there. . . . ) are finally coming to an umpteenth conclusion. . . Maybe they should slack off and let children be children. Hmmmmmm. Isn't it amazing how an intelligent conclusion always crops up after so much time and energy has been spent ruining good child lives for generations - a period which can only be judged as abusive and neglectful? Well, I guess we can do what we always do when we don't want to accept responsibility for having caused so much pain and damaged so many lives. . . We can simply chalk up those children unable to do anything on their own as "collateral damage". . . .
Sorry to be so cynical, but I don't see anything moving forward at any healthy pace which might be of service to present generations of children and adolescents.
On a more positive note: I've decided to congratulate parents whenever I can - wherever I am - when I see them "allow" their children to grow and become "individuals" rather than clones of the world. I am doing this in shops and grocery stores and even on the street. I simply step up and tell these parents how wonderful they are doing as parents. - for allowing their children to become the best that they can be. . . without hovering and constant reprimands to "be careful". I can tell you. There are some surprised and even blushing looks when this "stranger" posps up to tell them how wonderful they are as parents. The kids standing next to their parents? Their smiles are beaming with pride for these adults who are constantly being told by "specialists" that they're too dumb to know how to parent.
On another note - another article which does not say anything new but emphasizes how drastic an old situation has become : "Will Young Men Ever Grow Up?"
This article in the Ottawa Citizen (July 4, 2011) mentions the problem of boys not really wanting to become men anymore. Patricia Cayo Sexton reported in the 60s (in her book : The Feminized Male) that schools were detrimental to the physical, mental and emotional health of boys. North America's reaction to her research findings? Nothing. Why bother. If little boys can't sit still for a few hours every day being bored into a stupor than there's something wrong with them - not the system. And so, the encouraged lowest common denominatior life styles males embrace today shouldn't be a surprise. Life without passion has become the norm. Living at home, having their laundry done by Mom and being fed like wingless chicks who refuse to leave the nest - (while feeling entitled to all manner of their freeby lifestyles) - is now the norm. . . Between 1981 and 2006, the numbers of males living at home - and failing to embrace "growing up" - between 20 and 29 have risen from 27 % to 43.5%. . . There's literally nothing out there to excite men to become men - to take on the world, to get excited about possibilities. So they might as well stay home and remain the boys they have always been. Why bother with growing up? It's been disappointing to be male all this while anyway. . . Why would it suddenly change? So. . . "Who gives a damn about tomorrow."
But then. . . There's always the encouraging article filled with discouraging data. . . "Go Outside and Play" is a new mantrra that doesn't seem to be catching on. It simply isn't being stated with much enthusiasm. School days are shorter and that means no time for recesses of any consequence. Parents have been taught that there are strangers around every tree - so children can't go out and play "safely".
An article witht that exact title : Go Out And Play appeared in the Globe and Mail (July 4). It announces to the world that children have a hard time playing. . . They don't know how. . . My reaction : So what's new?. . . Children haven't been allowed to play on their own for the past decade. Organized sports, where there are some, are so adult oriented in content and goals, they fail to meet the creative pursuits of healthy children. The results? Unhealthy children in mind and body and "willingness" to achieve or even attempt anything on their own. And so, "specialists" (they're always there. . . . ) are finally coming to an umpteenth conclusion. . . Maybe they should slack off and let children be children. Hmmmmmm. Isn't it amazing how an intelligent conclusion always crops up after so much time and energy has been spent ruining good child lives for generations - a period which can only be judged as abusive and neglectful? Well, I guess we can do what we always do when we don't want to accept responsibility for having caused so much pain and damaged so many lives. . . We can simply chalk up those children unable to do anything on their own as "collateral damage". . . .
Sorry to be so cynical, but I don't see anything moving forward at any healthy pace which might be of service to present generations of children and adolescents.
On a more positive note: I've decided to congratulate parents whenever I can - wherever I am - when I see them "allow" their children to grow and become "individuals" rather than clones of the world. I am doing this in shops and grocery stores and even on the street. I simply step up and tell these parents how wonderful they are doing as parents. - for allowing their children to become the best that they can be. . . without hovering and constant reprimands to "be careful". I can tell you. There are some surprised and even blushing looks when this "stranger" posps up to tell them how wonderful they are as parents. The kids standing next to their parents? Their smiles are beaming with pride for these adults who are constantly being told by "specialists" that they're too dumb to know how to parent.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Children have a right to violence. . . . . . .
It seems that in California it is important that the "rights" of children to play (virtual) violent games be protected. From the mouths of those who advocate such a right, (it seems) that the damage done to their thinking and emotions and empathy and socialization abilities is negligible. . .
Have people who voice such thoughts given any consideration to how ludicrous this sounds? Has anyone considered that (possibly) the real violence done to children is that we routinely abdicate our responsibilities where children are concerned? As I have repeated at nauseum : It's simply easier that way. . . (Sigh)
Nonetheless, I cannot be defeated in my obsession for staring ahead positively. . . I still work hard at finding stories to counterbalance the stupidity that human nature seems to embrace now and then. . . (more often than not. . . now.) And EUREKA! They exist.
Visiting the following site will prove that there is still sanity in parenting out there and environments in which kids can actually "grow" enthusiastically. The following is uplifting. I hope it adds to your day. It certainly made me smile. Free Your Kids.
Signing off - your slmost daily Curmudgeon
Have people who voice such thoughts given any consideration to how ludicrous this sounds? Has anyone considered that (possibly) the real violence done to children is that we routinely abdicate our responsibilities where children are concerned? As I have repeated at nauseum : It's simply easier that way. . . (Sigh)
Nonetheless, I cannot be defeated in my obsession for staring ahead positively. . . I still work hard at finding stories to counterbalance the stupidity that human nature seems to embrace now and then. . . (more often than not. . . now.) And EUREKA! They exist.
Visiting the following site will prove that there is still sanity in parenting out there and environments in which kids can actually "grow" enthusiastically. The following is uplifting. I hope it adds to your day. It certainly made me smile. Free Your Kids.
Signing off - your slmost daily Curmudgeon
Friday, June 24, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
As the world turns. . .
And as the world turns things don't change much. Silliness increases and normality wanes. . .
Why do I say this? Let's take a peek at this week's news which highlights what humans are about these days.
If you can. . . have a great week. B
Why do I say this? Let's take a peek at this week's news which highlights what humans are about these days.
- Bumper cars in three amusement parks in Britain have banned people from "bumping". They must drive slowly and "avoid" other "bumper cars". . . Sigh. . .
- Seriously Obese (I thought obese in and of itself was serious) children in North America are being offered stomach stapling. . . No interest, it seems, in preventative measures, training parents to say "NO!", healthy eating or lengthening the school day (as it was in the past) to permit time for recesses and physical exercise, etc. No. . . That would be too simple. Rather, we wait until 12 year olds near 300 lbs before reacting. . . Sigh. . . Dr Maggie Mamen (psychologist) says parents can't say no. and actually find the thought abhorring. . . And so the old warnings remain - children with adult onset type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, cyst-filled ovaries. . . . I guess that's how we like our kids today. . .
- Then, there's a refugee claimant and migrant from China who, in Canada, can't answer the question: "What is Jesus like as a person?" His fate, it seems, is to have his Canadian citizenship application reversed and possibly be sent back to China. . .Interesting. I didn't know that to be welcomed to Canada today, the government must assess your religious beliefs.And who, pray tell, assesses theirs?
- Then there's the art student from the Ontario College of Art and design who places a bomb (fake that is) on the doorstep of the Royal Ontario Museum. (It's a conceptual piece. . . . . . ) You can get a degree in fine arts at our loftiest Universities without knowing how to draw or paint or sculpt but you can play conceptual mind games and be perceived as "creative". (I think I am getting sick to my stomach. . . )
- And in the same week, there's the article by the Globe and Mail"s Margaret Wente (entitled : "What's Wrong With Us? Not Much Apparently") It seems that every sniggly symptom deserves immediate attention lest you discover even worse. . . The whole basis for this interesting article is to point out that our health concerns are less real than they are figments of our fear-mongering environment.
- Then there's the animal protectors telling us to STOP the abuse and verbal violence against animals. . . We are being told to STOP the name calling. Vermin are not vermin. . . They are "differentiated beings". . . Are these the same peoplewqho ignore the fact that even in Canada many children go to school hungry? Even the word animal is perceived as abusive. . . Sigh. . . Can someone tell me why we perceive our modern democracy to be a sane environment into which our children are made to grow? Isn't that abusive? The Journal of Animal Ethics" invites us to meditate on these ideas. . . Hmm. I thought they said "animal" was an abusive term. Why is it therefore in the title of their organization?
- And then we come to a British elementary school which disciplined two 7 year olds for pointing. . . pointing in the manner of a gun. . . that is. "Finger guns" are banned in this school. . . This means that no child may allow himself (usually boys, wouldn't you know) the urge to create a finger gun by raising a thumb to the sky while pointing the index of the same hand (I would presume) at a potential victim. . . Doing so constitutes (according to the authorities at Nathaniel Newton Infant School in Nuneaton, Warwickshire) "threatening behaviour" which merits severe disciplinary consequences. . . (And our children are left in the hands of such minds for teaching purposes? We must really hate our children!)
- And yes, when reality is too insane to accept, there is always reality TV where "rich, pregnant and stupid - the perfect people to hate" can be ogled and fawned over as we are wont to do when TV reality is being broadcast. (see article on TV listings by John Doyle of the Globe and Mail)
- Then there's the teen-aged mother phenomenon. It seems we like to watch girls (not old enough to handle their own lives) screw up the lives of their offspring. This week, one of them has had her profile go viral. How did she do that? She attempted suicide- or so the media is promoting the "event". (What better way to get even more attention and ratings than your rival tv show starlets.
If you can. . . have a great week. B
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Quand l'école fait mal"
Intimidation and violence in our schools - but who cares!
So what's new today. Nothing actually. . . Except maybe that the brutality of bullying is in greater focus. If Le Droit (Ottawa)n newspaper's 3 page spread is anything to think about. . . (Quand l'école fait mal - Louis-Denis Ébacher - June 08, 2011) children are under siege right below our noses and, it seems, no one gives a damn. We have 2 generations of children who have been raised on fear of strangers but none who have been made aware of standing up to those they know - including school (child) acquaintances and or other adult 's known to them in the spheres of their own lives. Fight back? You become the bully. So what's to do? In the minds of some pre-adolescents and teens - suicide has been the only answer. After an initial "honest" reaction on that front, we sigh and all go back to our daily routines. . . sending money to save the lives of teary-eyed children from war-torn or famished countries while ignoring the emotional needs of our own sanitized and worry-free "looking" children of democracy. I may not be the most religious man in the world but this is more than slightly sinful.
For those who read French, this article is most revealing - but then. .. who's listening anyway.
Other interesting articles:
Preschoolers aware of their status (!!!) (National Post- Misty Harris, June 08, 2011) It seems that 4 year olds know what to do to get attention - at least middle-class kids raised via contemporary parenting standards do. They disrupt and interrupt, treat adults (even those in authority) as their equals and use "adult words" rather than their own age appropriate words to get their points across - and to get all of the attention. Children from less fortunate backgrounds get the short end of the stick in schools. All the 4 year olds seem aware that this "power behaviour" gets rewarded - whereas more submissive or courteous or independent behaviour does not.
It seems. . . (I'm trying to be fair. . . . . yeah right) those who are more forward and demanding get all of the attention - whether that is adult-child attention or academic attention. And as this seems to be the case, it becomes easier to surmise why certain children (read : less advantaged) begin their gradual disinterest in schooling. . . Why bother. It doesn't get you anywhere (and that is in a 4 year old's moldable mind).
Bernard
So what's new today. Nothing actually. . . Except maybe that the brutality of bullying is in greater focus. If Le Droit (Ottawa)n newspaper's 3 page spread is anything to think about. . . (Quand l'école fait mal - Louis-Denis Ébacher - June 08, 2011) children are under siege right below our noses and, it seems, no one gives a damn. We have 2 generations of children who have been raised on fear of strangers but none who have been made aware of standing up to those they know - including school (child) acquaintances and or other adult 's known to them in the spheres of their own lives. Fight back? You become the bully. So what's to do? In the minds of some pre-adolescents and teens - suicide has been the only answer. After an initial "honest" reaction on that front, we sigh and all go back to our daily routines. . . sending money to save the lives of teary-eyed children from war-torn or famished countries while ignoring the emotional needs of our own sanitized and worry-free "looking" children of democracy. I may not be the most religious man in the world but this is more than slightly sinful.
For those who read French, this article is most revealing - but then. .. who's listening anyway.
Other interesting articles:
Preschoolers aware of their status (!!!) (National Post- Misty Harris, June 08, 2011) It seems that 4 year olds know what to do to get attention - at least middle-class kids raised via contemporary parenting standards do. They disrupt and interrupt, treat adults (even those in authority) as their equals and use "adult words" rather than their own age appropriate words to get their points across - and to get all of the attention. Children from less fortunate backgrounds get the short end of the stick in schools. All the 4 year olds seem aware that this "power behaviour" gets rewarded - whereas more submissive or courteous or independent behaviour does not.
It seems. . . (I'm trying to be fair. . . . . yeah right) those who are more forward and demanding get all of the attention - whether that is adult-child attention or academic attention. And as this seems to be the case, it becomes easier to surmise why certain children (read : less advantaged) begin their gradual disinterest in schooling. . . Why bother. It doesn't get you anywhere (and that is in a 4 year old's moldable mind).
Bernard
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Today, I was lucky. I was privileged to hear the voice of a real artist. . .
I generally rant about various problems inherent to contemporary life but today. . . I am (trying to be) less of a curmudgeon.
I saw and heard something extraordinary; something which is most ENCOURAGING!
And so. . . I share it with you.
All of us have the capacity to be creative. Whether that creativity is expressed in mathematics, science, sports, music, writing or the visual arts is irrelevant. Creativity is that which allows us all to survive and thrive in a demanding and difficult world. That we are creative neither makes us geniuses nor does it make life easier. It simply makes us wondrously human. It helps make life more livable, more challenging and more exciting. Without it, we would all become discouraged and life unbearable. But does being creative mean we are all artists?
No. It simply means that we are healthy. It means that we have not lost our capacity to be exhilarated by discoveries as much as we are excited about communicating our findings. It means that sharing, giving and conversing with others on topics and feelings that move us is essential. Creativity is not a requirement which is solely associated with “Art” making. It is, rather, a universal ability which nurtures our need to marvel at and profit from the lives we find ourselves living. It goads us to constantly better that life and to offer to others the same possibility. In essence, creativity encourages us to better anything and everything that we do normally. De facto, being creative has nothing to do with “being” anything other than positively human.
And yet, this talent and effort normality aside, we must admit that some people do "have it" more than others - whatever “it” is. These people not only are curious and talented, they seem to know something we don't. As we do, they work hard at assimilating skills required to poetically transmit their individual messages. . . But. . . They also seem to have a special capacity to say, through their own chosen medium, ordinary things in an extraordinary way. And in so doing, their creative abilities loom larger than life. The reach their statements make even has a universal appeal.
Now this capacity to reach out, touch and move people in an extraordinary fashion is actually achieved daily by corporate America through their incessant advertising and promotions. So what makes individual "artists" so incredible? Is marketing and promotion to the masses more creative simply because they reach and effect astounding numbers? Is this what is art? Innovative and powerful, it definitely is. Creative and artistic? Well, that's another question. Is it artistic to lure the masses into minimizing and even eliminating difference and individuality through the homogenization of thought and action?. . . That's a topic already covered by Beyond Discouragement - Creativity.
Individual artists are those who, above and beyond all the pressures of contemporary homogeneity, strive to impress upon us the privilege and right to individual thinking, dreaming, curiosity, discovering and simply “to having a say”. And so, though many of us paint, sculpt, sing, dance and write with superior talent and energy, the varying degrees of notoriety we achieve is more often than not based on our being skilled painters, sculptors, musicians, dancers and poets - not artists. But then, do we have to be “artists” in order to enjoy what we do? Most of us don’t crave stardom to validate our existence. We simply find pleasure in being creative. We “do” things to the best of our abilities and skill and are proud that our creative efforts are, in addition, of value to others.
Artists, as stated above, are a rare breed. They are the same, yet different. Their processes are similar yet the outcome of their concerted efforts is extraordinary. Their work exudes a “je ne sais quoi”. They tend to step back to let their artwork sing. (They have already had their say in creating the artwork and, anyway. . . They’re already off thinking, considering and feeling another communication). Artists are a rare breed. Despite popular lore, most are not those who say they are artists or those who say they create “because of suffering” or those whose lives are problematic or Hollywood-style reality in stature. No. Artists are those who would rather concentrate on presenting to us what they have discovered, how those discoveries have made them feel and how they consider these discoveries will impact upon our lives. Artists are sharing individuals. Despite their often times monastic work habits, rarely do these individuals deny their connection with the world or public at large.
In essence, being called an artist is not the same as saying we are an artist. The former implies that a general public appreciates a level of artistry which has the ability to communicate a message powerfully. And because it does, that public shows its appreciation of excellence by bestowing upon out-of-ordinary creators the most revered title : of “artist”. On the other hand, the latter suggests that, being impatient, we have absconded with the title - simply because we wanted it.
Commenting further on the concept of suffering and victimhood in the arts, it is impossible to deny the importance of creativity and self-expression in surmounting turmoil and healing. These are part of a respected therapeutic process which gives “body” to a hurt. They introduce the concept of real and “tangible” to pain. Subsequently, through such a concrete incarnation, the possibility of defeating or taming suffering becomes real. Creativity, in that sense, helps heal wounded souls through the creation of a tool called : "artwork". And the reasoning behind such therapeutic processes is to eliminate or minimize pain and to defeating a sense of victimhood.
Victimhood, as it is too often promoted by our reality TV environment, actually minimizes real pain and suffering. It has become so ingrained in our contemporary psyches that differentiating true victims from pseudo-victims is proving itself to be more and more difficult every day. Being a victim (or playing at it) should not be a status or tool to promote oneself - not if our society is healthy. And it is certainly even less a state which is desired by real artists. If anything, victimhood should be something we desire greatly to overcome - not take advantage of. It is only through its elimination that we become strong as individuals and as a collective.
Where artists are concerned, hurt and suffering can be part and parcel of their human existence, as much as it can be part of ours. There is nothing extraordinary about an “artist” being in pain. The role of hurt or pain, in most of our lives, is that of an inconvenient annoyance which, depending on its intensity, can dictate (or not) whether our lives are positive and creative (or not). In the life of any victim, creativity may exist in tandem with pain - and through this connection a healthy therapeutic expression may begin. But in the life of an artist who also happens to suffer, the “raison d’être” of pain seems different. True artists have always created “despite” pain, not because of it. For many years I have spoken on this very point - though some have pooh-poohed my assertions.
Today, I was somewhat vindicated. I heard the voice of Sung Bong Choi. (see You Tube link). And I heard the young man’s story. I knew then that I was listening not to a voice in pain but a voice which rang out, which existed and exploded with a powerful sense of life-giving energy - “despite” the serious emotional pain which afflicts him. An artist’s voice is never anti hope nor desperate nor despairing nor filled with discouragement. I repeat : A true artist’s voice exists despite pain. And when pain is involved in the life of an artist, THAT “despiteness” is what makes creative genius ART. And, subsequently, an individual an artist.
I saw and heard something extraordinary; something which is most ENCOURAGING!
And so. . . I share it with you.
All of us have the capacity to be creative. Whether that creativity is expressed in mathematics, science, sports, music, writing or the visual arts is irrelevant. Creativity is that which allows us all to survive and thrive in a demanding and difficult world. That we are creative neither makes us geniuses nor does it make life easier. It simply makes us wondrously human. It helps make life more livable, more challenging and more exciting. Without it, we would all become discouraged and life unbearable. But does being creative mean we are all artists?
No. It simply means that we are healthy. It means that we have not lost our capacity to be exhilarated by discoveries as much as we are excited about communicating our findings. It means that sharing, giving and conversing with others on topics and feelings that move us is essential. Creativity is not a requirement which is solely associated with “Art” making. It is, rather, a universal ability which nurtures our need to marvel at and profit from the lives we find ourselves living. It goads us to constantly better that life and to offer to others the same possibility. In essence, creativity encourages us to better anything and everything that we do normally. De facto, being creative has nothing to do with “being” anything other than positively human.
And yet, this talent and effort normality aside, we must admit that some people do "have it" more than others - whatever “it” is. These people not only are curious and talented, they seem to know something we don't. As we do, they work hard at assimilating skills required to poetically transmit their individual messages. . . But. . . They also seem to have a special capacity to say, through their own chosen medium, ordinary things in an extraordinary way. And in so doing, their creative abilities loom larger than life. The reach their statements make even has a universal appeal.
Now this capacity to reach out, touch and move people in an extraordinary fashion is actually achieved daily by corporate America through their incessant advertising and promotions. So what makes individual "artists" so incredible? Is marketing and promotion to the masses more creative simply because they reach and effect astounding numbers? Is this what is art? Innovative and powerful, it definitely is. Creative and artistic? Well, that's another question. Is it artistic to lure the masses into minimizing and even eliminating difference and individuality through the homogenization of thought and action?. . . That's a topic already covered by Beyond Discouragement - Creativity.
Individual artists are those who, above and beyond all the pressures of contemporary homogeneity, strive to impress upon us the privilege and right to individual thinking, dreaming, curiosity, discovering and simply “to having a say”. And so, though many of us paint, sculpt, sing, dance and write with superior talent and energy, the varying degrees of notoriety we achieve is more often than not based on our being skilled painters, sculptors, musicians, dancers and poets - not artists. But then, do we have to be “artists” in order to enjoy what we do? Most of us don’t crave stardom to validate our existence. We simply find pleasure in being creative. We “do” things to the best of our abilities and skill and are proud that our creative efforts are, in addition, of value to others.
Artists, as stated above, are a rare breed. They are the same, yet different. Their processes are similar yet the outcome of their concerted efforts is extraordinary. Their work exudes a “je ne sais quoi”. They tend to step back to let their artwork sing. (They have already had their say in creating the artwork and, anyway. . . They’re already off thinking, considering and feeling another communication). Artists are a rare breed. Despite popular lore, most are not those who say they are artists or those who say they create “because of suffering” or those whose lives are problematic or Hollywood-style reality in stature. No. Artists are those who would rather concentrate on presenting to us what they have discovered, how those discoveries have made them feel and how they consider these discoveries will impact upon our lives. Artists are sharing individuals. Despite their often times monastic work habits, rarely do these individuals deny their connection with the world or public at large.
In essence, being called an artist is not the same as saying we are an artist. The former implies that a general public appreciates a level of artistry which has the ability to communicate a message powerfully. And because it does, that public shows its appreciation of excellence by bestowing upon out-of-ordinary creators the most revered title : of “artist”. On the other hand, the latter suggests that, being impatient, we have absconded with the title - simply because we wanted it.
Commenting further on the concept of suffering and victimhood in the arts, it is impossible to deny the importance of creativity and self-expression in surmounting turmoil and healing. These are part of a respected therapeutic process which gives “body” to a hurt. They introduce the concept of real and “tangible” to pain. Subsequently, through such a concrete incarnation, the possibility of defeating or taming suffering becomes real. Creativity, in that sense, helps heal wounded souls through the creation of a tool called : "artwork". And the reasoning behind such therapeutic processes is to eliminate or minimize pain and to defeating a sense of victimhood.
Victimhood, as it is too often promoted by our reality TV environment, actually minimizes real pain and suffering. It has become so ingrained in our contemporary psyches that differentiating true victims from pseudo-victims is proving itself to be more and more difficult every day. Being a victim (or playing at it) should not be a status or tool to promote oneself - not if our society is healthy. And it is certainly even less a state which is desired by real artists. If anything, victimhood should be something we desire greatly to overcome - not take advantage of. It is only through its elimination that we become strong as individuals and as a collective.
Where artists are concerned, hurt and suffering can be part and parcel of their human existence, as much as it can be part of ours. There is nothing extraordinary about an “artist” being in pain. The role of hurt or pain, in most of our lives, is that of an inconvenient annoyance which, depending on its intensity, can dictate (or not) whether our lives are positive and creative (or not). In the life of any victim, creativity may exist in tandem with pain - and through this connection a healthy therapeutic expression may begin. But in the life of an artist who also happens to suffer, the “raison d’être” of pain seems different. True artists have always created “despite” pain, not because of it. For many years I have spoken on this very point - though some have pooh-poohed my assertions.
Today, I was somewhat vindicated. I heard the voice of Sung Bong Choi. (see You Tube link). And I heard the young man’s story. I knew then that I was listening not to a voice in pain but a voice which rang out, which existed and exploded with a powerful sense of life-giving energy - “despite” the serious emotional pain which afflicts him. An artist’s voice is never anti hope nor desperate nor despairing nor filled with discouragement. I repeat : A true artist’s voice exists despite pain. And when pain is involved in the life of an artist, THAT “despiteness” is what makes creative genius ART. And, subsequently, an individual an artist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)